List Markdown headings and their generated anchors in source order for a given file path. Use it to inspect document structure or navigate sections by level.
List Markdown headings and generated anchors in source order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_level | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sections | Yes | ||
| has_front_matter | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output ordering and that anchors are generated, but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for a missing path, or whether anchors reflect existing vs. synthesized targets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the key qualifiers (source order, generated anchors) front-loaded. No filler and nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the definition still leaves the two input parameters unexplained and gives no usage context relative to read_markdown. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose entire configuration surface is undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters. The description never mentions what 'path' points at or that 'max_level' caps heading depth (default 3, max 6), leaving the depth-limiting behavior completely undocumented in both schema and prose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb (List) plus a clearly bounded resource (Markdown headings and generated anchors), with the ordering stated. It implicitly separates itself from read_markdown by returning a structural outline rather than content, but never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this instead of read_markdown, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.